Teacher Preparation to Deliver Evidence-Based...

Innovation Configuration

Teacher Preparation to Deliver

Evidence-Based Transition

Planning and Services to Youth

With Disabilities

Mary E. Morningstar University of Kansas

Valerie L. Mazzotti University of Oregon

July 2014

CEEDAR Document No. IC-1

of 58

Disclaimer:

This content was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special

Education Programs, Award No. H325A120003. Bonnie Jones and David Guardino

serve as the project officers. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the

positions or polices of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by

the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise

mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred.

Recommended Citation:

Morningstar, M., & Mazzotti, V. (2014). Teacher preparation to deliver evidence-based

transition planning and services to youth with disabilities (Document No. IC-1).

Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator,

Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website:

http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Note: There are no copyright restrictions on this document; however, please use the

proper citation.

above.

http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

of 58

Table of Contents

Innovation Configuration for Transition Planning and Services .................................................... 4

Required Knowledge and Skills for Teachers of Secondary Students With Disabilities ............... 6

Essential Components of Effective Transition Programs ............................................................... 9

Student-Focused Planning ...........................................................................................................9

Student Development ................................................................................................................12

Family Involvement ..................................................................................................................21

Program Structure .....................................................................................................................23

Interagency Collaboration .........................................................................................................25

Recommendations and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 27

References ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A: Innovation Configuration for Transition Planning and Services ............................ 40

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 50

Table B1: Secondary Transition Evidence-Based Practices Organized by the Taxonomy .......... 51

Table B2: Operational Definitions for Evidence-Based Predictors of Postschool Success .......... 55

Table B3: Evidence-Based Predictors by Postschool Outcome Area ........................................... 58

of 58

Innovation Configuration for Transition Planning and Services

This paper features an innovation configuration (IC) matrix that can guide teacher preparation

professionals in the development of appropriate transition planning and services content. This

matrix appears in Appendix A.

An IC is a tool that identifies and describes the major components of a practice or innovation.

With the implementation of any innovation comes a continuum of configurations of

implementation from non-use to the ideal. ICs are organized around two dimensions: essential

components and degree of implementation (Hall & Hord, 1987; Roy & Hord, 2004). Essential

components of the IC—along with descriptors and examples to guide application of the criteria

to course work, standards, and classroom practices—are listed in the rows of the far left column

of the matrix. Several levels of implementation are defined in the top row of the matrix. For

example, no mention of the essential component is the lowest level of implementation and would

receive a score of zero. Increasing levels of implementation receive progressively higher scores.

ICs have been used in the development and implementation of educational innovations for at

least 30 years (Hall & Hord, 2001; Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, & Newton, 1975; Hord,

Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987; Roy & Hord, 2004). Experts studying educational

change in a national research center originally developed these tools, which are used for

professional development (PD) in the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). The tools

have also been used for program evaluation (Hall & Hord, 2001; Roy & Hord, 2004).

Use of this tool to evaluate course syllabi can help teacher preparation leaders ensure that they

emphasize proactive, preventative approaches instead of exclusive reliance on behavior

reduction strategies. The IC included in Appendix A of this paper is designed for teacher

preparation programs, although it can be modified as an observation tool for PD purposes.

The Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform

(CEEDAR) Center ICs are extensions of the seven ICs originally created by the National

Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (NCCTQ). NCCTQ professionals wrote the above

description.

of 58

Since 1990, and with subsequent amendments in 1997 and 2004, the secondary transition

provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have required special

educators to plan, coordinate, and deliver transition services for secondary-aged students with

disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Section 300.43 of IDEA 2004 defines

transition services as a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that (a) is

designed to be within a results-oriented process focused on improving the academic and

functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from

school to postschool activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education,

integrated and supported employment, continuing and adult education, adult services,

independent living, or community participation and (b) is based on the individual child’s needs,

taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests, including instruction, related

services, community experiences, the development of employment and other postschool adult

living objectives, and if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and provision of a

functional vocational evaluation (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).

Despite these requirements, students with disabilities continue to face postschool

outcomes in which they are less prepared for adulthood than their peers without disabilities

(Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009). This discrepancy may be due, in part, to

secondary special educators feeling unprepared to plan for and deliver transition services

(Li, Bassett, & Hutchison, 2009; Wolfe, Boone, & Blanchett, 1998). Studies have shown that

secondary special educators lack knowledge and skills that hinder their abilities to implement

effective transition practices (Benitez, Morningstar, & Frey, 2009; Knott & Asselin, 1999).

Consequently, teachers who are unprepared to plan and deliver transition services may be

of 58

inadvertently contributing to the poor outcomes of students with disabilities (Morningstar &

Clavenna-Deane, in press).

Given the changing roles of secondary special educators, it stands to reason that teacher

education programs should be geared toward increasing pre-service content targeting transition

planning and services. Unfortunately, Anderson and colleagues (2003) reported from a national

survey of special education personnel preparation programs that less than half of the programs

(i.e., 43%) offered a stand-alone course devoted to secondary transition. Transition personnel

development (i.e., pre- and in-service) has been recognized as a keystone to improving transition

services (Blalock et al., 2003); however, clear guidance has not been provided for establishing

high-quality approaches that prepare secondary transition teachers with the knowledge and skills

to improve in-school and postschool outcomes for students with disabilities.

This IC can serve as a foundation for enhancing current practices in preparing special

educators to provide transition services. As such, this IC examines (a) the current state of

identified transition evidence-based practices (EBPs) and predictors of postschool success to

support students with disabilities as they transition into postschool life; (b) a review of critical

programmatic structures and services teachers must have that predict better postschool outcomes,

including secondary transition EBPs to support student skill development; and (c) implications

for future practice and research, including how state educational agencies (SEA) and institutions

of higher education (IHE) can utilize the IC to identify areas of strengths and necessary changes

to improve transition services that result in improved adult outcomes for youth with disabilities.

Required Knowledge and Skills for Teachers of Secondary Students With Disabilities

In order to improve in-school and postschool outcomes for students with disabilities,

teachers must be prepared with the knowledge and skills to provide secondary transition EBPs

and programs. However, recent survey research indicates that many transition specialists and

of 58

teachers are not fully prepared to effectively implement secondary transition EBPs, and many

have indicated that they are unaware of established EBPs that contribute to postschool success

(Mazzotti & Plotner, 2013; Morningstar & Roberts, in preparation). To ensure that teachers are

fully prepared to provide effective secondary transition programs and practices, student-level

EBPs and systems-level predictors of students’ postschool success must be included in teacher

education programs (Cook, Cook, & Landrum, 2013; Mazzotti, Test, & Mustian, 2012).

In 2009, the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC,

2013) completed a two-part systematic literature review that included identifying secondary

transition EBPs (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009) and predictors of students’ postschool success (Test,

Mazzotti, et al., 2009). The first comprehensive literature review focused on identifying

secondary transition EBPs to determine practices that supported secondary transition skill

development for students. Based on the first review of literature, 63 secondary transition EBPs

were identified (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming

(i.e., Taxonomy; Kohler, 1996) was used to organize EBPs. The Taxonomy is a research-based

framework used in the field of secondary transition to guide the development, implementation,

and evaluation of secondary transition programs (Kohler & Field, 2003; Mazzotti, Rowe, & Test,

2013). The Taxonomy includes five essential areas: (a) student-focused planning, (b) student

development, (c) family involvement, (d) program structure, and (e) interagency collaboration.

Of the 63 practices, six were identified under the taxonomy area of student-focused planning, 56

were identified under student development, one was identified under family involvement, nine

were identified under program structure, and nothing was identified under interagency

collaboration (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). See Appendix B: Table B1 for a list of EBPs by

taxonomy area. In an effort to bridge the research-to-practice gap, NSTTAC developed Practice

of 58

Descriptions that describe each EBP in detail and Research to Practice Lesson Plan Starters that

provide teachers with lesson plans based on the empirical research they can use to teach each

EBP (NSTTAC, 2013).

Although the first review examined group and single-subject experimental research and

provided pertinent information related to EBPs to support skill development of secondary

students with disabilities, it did not provide information about secondary transition program

components that lead to positive outcomes for students with disabilities as they transition into

postschool life. Therefore, the second review of literature focused on reviewing correlational

research to determine in-school secondary transition program components that were linked to

positive postschool outcomes for students with disabilities (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). Based

on findings of the second review, 16 evidence-based predictors of postschool success were

identified (see Appendix B: Table B2). Since the initial review, one additional predictor

(i.e., parental expectations) has been added.

Finally, in an effort to support secondary transition program improvement, NSTTAC and

the National Post-School Outcomes Center have recently completed a Delphi study to further

define each predictor category in order to operationally define each predictor, including essential

program characteristics, to ensure that educators understand the components to develop,

implement, and evaluate secondary transition programs (Rowe et al., 2013a). Based on the

results of the Delphi study, a Predictor Implementation School/District Self-Assessment was

developed for schools, districts, and states to use to evaluate, develop, and improve transition

programs to ensure that programs include evidence-based transition program characteristics

(Rowe et al., 2013b).

of 58

Essential Components of Effective Transition Programs

For teachers to be prepared to implement secondary transition EBPs and predictors of

postschool success, it is imperative that teacher education programs include these essential

evidence-based components throughout a course of study (Morgan, Callow-Heuser, Horrocks,

Hoffman, & Kupferman, 2013; Morningstar & Clark, 2003). It is important to note that although

secondary transition personnel must have the knowledge and skills required to implement EBPs,

there is a need for transition personnel to understand the systems-level supports that must also be

in place to ensure that programs can effectively support students with disabilities as they

transition into adulthood. Therefore, it is imperative that personnel preparation programs also

provide this information. Systems-level supports typically fall under the taxonomy categories of

program structure and interagency collaboration and comprise the infrastructures to ensure that

comprehensive transition programs are effectively implemented. The following discussion of

EBPs and predictors of postschool success is organized according to the five areas of the

taxonomy and include an overview of secondary transition EBPs and predictors of postschool

success, including systems-level implementation, for students with disabilities.

Student-Focused Planning

There are five essential components for this area that should be considered while

preparing teachers to work with secondary students with disabilities: (a) involving students in

transition individualized education programs (IEPs), (b) teaching transition planning skills,

(c) including in the IEP a comprehensive and relevant program of study, (d) defining in the IEP

appropriate and measurable transition goals, and (e) utilizing systematic and age-appropriate

transition assessment. Teachers must first be familiar with the predictors of postschool success

that relate to the essential components. This familiarity provides teachers with the knowledge

and skills to ensure that programs include EBPs leading to positive postschool success.

of 58

Specifically, there are two predictors of postschool success (i.e., self-determination/self-

advocacy and program of study) related to these essential components that should be considered

while preparing teachers to effectively implement secondary transition programs. First, research

indicates that students who graduate high school with higher levels of self-determination are

more likely than students who graduate high school with lower levels of self-determination to

have positive postschool employment and education outcomes (Morningstar et al., 2010; Test,

Mazzotti, et al., 2009). Self-determination/self-advocacy refers to “the ability to make choices,

solve problems, set goals, evaluate options, take initiative to reach one’s goals, and accept

consequences of one’s actions” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 8). Related to these essential

components, teachers must be prepared to teach self-advocacy skills, goal-setting skills,

choice-making skills, and problem-solving skills. Additionally, teachers must be prepared to

understand “cultural nuances” while teaching self-determination (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 9) to

ensure that cultural identity is considered while supporting students from diverse backgrounds to

make transition decisions and utilize self-determination strategies (Trainor, 2005).

Educators must also understand how to embed skill development and opportunities for

students to practice self-determined skills within academic course content as well as throughout

other aspects of students’ days. This may include implementing the Self-Determination

Learning Model of Instruction (Shogren, Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams-Diehm, & Little, 2012),

which can be implemented in general educational contexts and special education settings.

Teachers must also have an understanding of using student-centered transition assessment

methods to facilitate the ability of students to learn about themselves, set in-school and

postschool goals, and participate in the transition planning process. This is especially relevant

while preparing students to self-direct their transition planning meetings (Martin et al., 2006).

of 58

Developing a relevant program of study has also been identified as a predictor of positive

postschool employment success for students with disabilities (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009).

Program of study has been operationally defined as “an individualized set of courses,

experiences, and curriculum designed to develop students’ academic and functional achievement

to support the attainment of students’ desired postschool goals” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 8).

Therefore, effective transition programming requires that teachers have the knowledge and skills

to work with students to develop an individualized program of study that incorporates relevant

school experiences that engage students throughout their secondary school years. This requires

secondary educators to understand and implement EBPs. Secondary educators must also

understand predictors of postschool success, models of individualized learning plans (Solberg,

Wills, & Osman, 2013), and diploma options available to all students.

Evidence-based practices for student-focused planning. NSTTAC has identified six

EBPs that teachers can use to facilitate their understanding and implementation of

student-focused planning (see Appendix B: Table B1; refer to

http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices for Practice Descriptions and Research

to Practice Lesson Plan Starters). For each EBP identified under student-focused planning, there

are a number of empirically validated teaching strategies used to teach each skill. Two examples

of EBPs to teach student involvement in transition IEPs are the Self-Advocacy Strategy

(VanReusen, Bos, & Shumaker, 1994) and the Self-Directed IEP (Martin, Huber-Marshall,

Maxson, & Jerman, 1996). These practices have a number of empirical research studies to

support use (e.g., Allen, Smith, Test, Flowers, & Wood, 2001; Lancaster, Shumaker, & Deshler,

2002; Martin et al., 2006; Test & Neale, 2004). Additionally, the Whose Future Is It Anyway?

curriculum (Wehmeyer, Lawrence, Soukup, & Palmer, 2004) has been identified as an EBP for

http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices

of 58

teaching students about the transition planning process. Teacher education programs must

provide educators with opportunities to learn about and implement EBPs related to

student-focused planning, including having the opportunity to implement EBPs and predictors in

course work and field experiences.

Student Development

The taxonomy area of student development includes assessing and teaching functional,

academic, social, and vocational skills to ensure that students are fully prepared for postschool

life (Kohler, 1996). In this area, teachers should be prepared to teach and provide training

related to (a) independent living, (b) community participation, (c) employment skills,

(d) work-based experiences, (e) academics, and (f) self-determination. This taxonomy area has

the most extensive depth and breadth of research evidence; therefore, teachers should develop a

content map of the range of practices leading to student skill development and the factors that

facilitate postschool success. While preparing teachers to assess and teach transition-related,

student-specific skills, culturally responsive teaching approaches that incorporate cultural

knowledge, prior experience, frame of reference, and performance styles of diverse students

should be emphasized so that learning is relevant and effective (Gay, 2010). The following

sections are organized by the essential student development components.

Independent living skills. Two predictors of postschool success related to teaching

independent living skills (i.e., self-care/independent living and social skills) should be

considered. Self-care/independent living has been operationally defined as “skills necessary for

management of one’s personal self-care and daily independent living, including the personal

management skills needed to interact with others, daily living skills, financial management skills,

and the self-management of healthcare/wellness needs” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 9). The second

predictor of postschool success is social skills, operationally defined as “behaviors and attitudes

of 58

that facilitate communication and cooperation (e.g., social conventions and social

problem-solving while engaged in a social interaction, body language, speaking, listening,

responding, verbal and written communication)” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 10). Specifically,

teachers must be prepared to integrate both independent living skills and social skills as needed

to support the diverse needs of students. Therefore, at the systems level, teachers must know

how to effectively embed independent living and social skills across academic content areas in

the general educational context and community settings.

Next, teachers must be prepared to teach independent living skills to students with

disabilities. Independent living skills training will vary based on the needs of individual

students. NSTTAC has identified nine EBPs for teaching independent living (i.e., home

maintenance skills, leisure skills, food preparation and cooking skills, laundry skills,

self-management skills, safety skills, communication skills, self-care skills, and social skills; see

Appendix B: Table B1; refer to http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices for

Practice Descriptions and Research to Practice Lesson Plan Starters). For each of the

independent living skills, there are a number of EBPs that have been used to teach each skill.

For example, computer-assisted instruction has been used to teach food preparation and cooking

skills to students with intellectual disabilities (Ayres & Cihak, 2010; Mechling, Gast, & Fields,

2008; Mechling & Stephens, 2009). Additionally, video modeling has been used to teach home

maintenance skills to students with autism and moderate intellectual disabilities

(e.g., Cannella-Malone, Wheaton, Wu, Tullis, & Park, 2012; Lasater & Brady, 1995; Mechling,

Gast, & Gustafson, 2009).

The EBP descriptions and NSTTAC resources provide methods for teaching

evidence-based independent living skills. Given that these resources are now readily available,


of 58

teacher education programs must prepare teachers to (a) teach independent living skills using

EBPs, (b) understand when independent living skill training is needed, and (c) provide

opportunities to use EBPs during course work and field experiences.

Community participation skills. Thus far, only one predictor of postschool success

related to teaching community participation skills (i.e., community experiences) has been

identified. Community experiences have been operationally defined as “activities occurring

outside of the school setting, supported with in-class instruction, where students apply academic,

social, and/or general work behaviors and skills” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 6). Teachers should

have the knowledge and skills to effectively understand the characteristics of this predictor while

determining opportunities students have to participate in community experiences in transition

programs. Specifically, teachers must be prepared to integrate community experiences into the

curriculum; they must also learn to consider rigorous simulated school experiences when

budgetary funds are limited. At the systems level, teachers must be prepared with the knowledge

and skills to identify methods to provide meaningful community experiences (Landmark, Ju, &

Zhang, 2010). This includes preparing teachers with information about how to allocate resources

at the school and community levels, work with community partners, and conduct community

mapping to determine opportunities and available resources to facilitate community experiences

for students with disabilities.

Teachers must be prepared to provide community-based instruction to students with

disabilities to support the generalization of skills learned in the classroom and work with students

to interpret and deepen their existing knowledge and enthusiasm for learning (Wiodowski &

Ginsberg, 1995). It is essential to understand students’ cultures and use their communities to

support engagement. NSTTAC has identified a number of EBPs for teaching community

of 58

participation skills (i.e., restaurant purchasing skills, grocery shopping skills, life skills, and

finance skills; see Appendix B: Table B1; refer to http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-

practices for Practice Descriptions and Research to Practice Lesson Plan Starters). For each of

these skills, there have been a number of empirically validated studies that have used

community-based instruction to teach each skill. For example, community-based instruction has

been used to teach community integration skills, including crossing the street, washing clothes at

a Laundromat, and cashing a check at a bank (i.e., Bates, Cuvo, Miner, & Korebek, 1999;

Branham, Collins, Schuster, & Kleinhert, 1999; Collins, Stinson, & Land, 1993). Additionally,

simulated instruction in the classroom paired with community-based instruction at a local

grocery store has been used to teach students banking skills (i.e., withdrawing money from an

ATM; Alberto, Cihak, & Gama, 2005).

The EBPs related to community participation and the NSTTAC resources provide

methods for teaching evidence-based community participation skills. Therefore, teacher

education programs must prepare teachers to (a) understand the importance of community-based

instruction for teaching generalization of skills; (b) teach community participation skills using

EBPs; (c) understand when community participation is needed; (d) investigate methods to

connect learning to schools and communities to facilitate community participation

(e.g., community mapping); and (e) provide opportunities for teachers to use community

participation EBPs during course work and field experiences.

Employment skills and experiences. This essential component includes teacher

knowledge and skills related to providing both school- and work-based employment

opportunities for students with disabilities while they are in high school. There are five

predictors of postschool success related to teaching employment skills and experiences



of 58

(i.e., career awareness, occupational courses, paid employment/work experience, vocational

education, and work study). See Appendix B: Table B2 for operational definitions of each of the

predictors related to teaching employment skills and experiences.

Specifically, teachers must be prepared to integrate school- and work-based career

development experiences into the curriculum. This should include preparing teachers with the

knowledge and skills to understand how to develop, implement, and evaluate school- and

work-based experiences. At the systems level, teachers must be able to identify meaningful

school-based (e.g., school-based enterprises, on-campus jobs) and work-based

(e.g., volunteering, job shadowing, internships, paid work experiences) career development

experiences (Baer et al., 2003; Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000). This includes preparing

teachers with information about how to (a) develop and implement school-based employment

opportunities, (b) identify and allocate resources at the school and community levels to ensure

employment opportunities for students, and (c) develop partnerships with employers and

community partners to facilitate off-campus work experiences for students with disabilities.

In addition to understanding the predictors, teachers must be prepared to provide

employment skill training to ensure that students with disabilities have the skills to gain

meaningful, competitive employment in postschool life. Employment skill training will vary

based on the needs of individual students. NSTTAC has identified seven EBPs for teaching

job-specific employment skills (e.g., cleaning a bathroom, using a copy machine; see Appendix

B: Table B1; refer to http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices for Practice

Descriptions and Research to Practice Lesson Plan Starters). There are a number of empirically

validated teaching strategies that have been used to teach employment skills. For example,

mnemonics has been used to teach students to complete job applications (Nelson, Smith, &


of 58

Dodd, 1994). Additionally, computer-assisted instruction has been used to teach employment

skills such as rolling silverware, watering office plants, and changing paper towels in an office

bathroom (Mechling & Ortega-Hurndon, 2007; Riffel et al., 2005).

These EBPs and the NSTTAC resources provide methods for teaching evidence-based

employment skills. Therefore, teacher education programs must prepare teachers to (a) assess

student employment skills and interests, (b) understand how to provide employment skills

instruction and embed career awareness into the curriculum, (c) effectively implement

school- and work-based employment experiences, and (d) provide opportunities to use EBPs to

teach employment skills during course work and field experiences.

Teaching academic skills. This essential component includes teacher knowledge and

skills related to academic skill instruction for students with disabilities while they are in high

school. There are three predictors of postschool success related to teaching academic skills

(i.e., exit exam requirements/high school diploma status, inclusion in general education, and

program of study). Exit exam requirements/high school diploma status has been operationally

defined as

standardized tests, assessing a single content area (e.g. Algebra, English) or multiple skill

areas with specified levels of proficiency that students must pass in order to obtain a high

school diploma. Diploma status is achieved by completing the requirements of the state

awarding the diploma including the completion of necessary core curriculum credits.

(Rowe et al., 2013b, pp. 6-7)

Inclusion in general education has been operationally defined as follows: “General education

requires students with disabilities to have access to general education curriculum and be engaged

in regular education classes with peers without disabilities” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 7). Last,

of 58

program of study has been operationally defined as “an individualized set of courses,

experiences, and curriculum designed to develop students’ academic and functional achievement

to support the attainment of students’ desired postschool goals” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 8).

Teachers should have the knowledge and skills to understand the academic skills,

including functional academic skills, required for students to participate in a particular program

of study, access the general curriculum, and obtain a high school diploma. At the systems level,

teachers must be prepared with the knowledge and skills to implement the principles of

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to support students with disabilities in the general

curriculum, work with administrators and other school personnel to ensure that students with

disabilities are successful in academic settings, and identify a process for students to be

successful and supported in a specific program of study (Rowe et al., 2013b). This includes

preparing teachers with information about how to (a) differentiate instruction; (b) provide

learning strategies and meta-cognitive strategy instruction; (c) develop relationships with general

education teachers, including career and technical education teachers, to support students with

disabilities; and (d) identify needed accommodations and assistive technology (AT) that can

support students with disabilities in academic settings.

Teachers must also be prepared to provide academic skills, including functional academic

skills, for students with disabilities to ensure that students have the reading, writing, and math

skills to be successful in all aspects of postschool life. Academic skill training will vary based

on the needs of individual students. NSTTAC has identified a number of EBPs for teaching both

academic and functional academic skills (see Appendix B: Table B1; refer to


to Practice Lesson Plan Starters). For example, peer-assisted instruction (e.g., peer tutoring,


of 58

cooperative learning) has been used to teach math and writing skills (Bahr & Rieth, 1991; Wong,

Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1997). Additionally, mnemonics has been used to facilitate learning

of new information and teach math skills (i.e, Wolgemuth, Cobb, & Alwell, 2008).

The EBPs and the NSTTAC resources provide methods for teaching evidence-based

academic skills; therefore, teacher education programs must prepare teachers with knowledge

and skills to (a) teach learning and meta-cognitive strategies to support academic skill

development; (b) understand how to provide functional academic skills instruction; (c) embed

real-life examples within academic content; (d) provide remediation, accommodations, and AT

to support academic skill development; and (e) provide opportunities to use these EBPs during

course work and field experiences.

Self-determination skills. This essential component includes teacher knowledge and

skills related to self-determination skill instruction for students with disabilities. The one

predictor of postschool success related to self-determination has been operationally defined as

“the ability to make choices, solve problems, set goals, evaluate options, take initiative to reach

one’s goals, and accept consequences of one’s actions” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 8). The concept

of self-determination includes 12 component skills that students must possess in order to lead a

self-determined postschool life: (a) choice-making skills; (b) decision-making skills;

(c) problem-solving skills; (d) goal-setting and attainment skills; (e) independence, risk-taking,

and safety skills; (f) self-regulation/self-management skills; (g) self-instruction skills;

(h) self-advocacy and leadership skills; (i) internal locus of control skills; (j) positive attributions

of efficacy and outcome expectancy skills; (k) self-awareness skills; and (l) self-knowledge skills

(Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001).

of 58

At the systems level, teachers must be prepared with the knowledge and skills to develop

and implement procedures that include teaching self-determination skills, working with general

education teachers to ensure that opportunities related to self-determination are embedded across

the curricula, and embedding real-life experiences in the curriculum to provide opportunities for

students to learn self-determination skills (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001). This includes

(a) preparing teachers with information about self-determination assessment and curricula;

(b) developing and implementing student leadership opportunities; (c) developing plans that

include general education teachers to ensure that choice making, problem solving, and goal

setting are embedded in lesson planning across the curricula; and (d) identifying EBPs related to

self-determination to support students with mild, moderate, and severe disabilities.

In addition to understanding the predictors of postschool success, teachers must be

prepared to provide instruction for students with disabilities to ensure that they have the

self-determination skills to be successful in all aspects of postschool life. Instruction related to

self-determination skills will vary based on the needs of individual students. NSTTAC has

identified two EBP curricula for teaching self-determination skills (i.e., Whose Future Is It

Anyway? and Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction [SDLMI]; see Appendix B: Table

B1; refer to http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices for Practice Descriptions

and Research to Practice Lesson Plan Starters). These EBPs have been used to teach several

self-determination skills (e.g., goal-setting skills, problem-solving skills, decision-making skills).

For example, Whose Future Is It Anyway? has been used to teach a number of self-determination

skills required in the transition planning process (e.g., self-awareness skills, goal-setting skills,

decision-making skills; Y. Lee et al., 2011). Additionally, the SLDMI has been used to teach

goal setting and attainment skills (S. Lee, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, & Little, 2008).


of 58

These EBPs and the NSTTAC resources provide methods for teaching evidence-based

self-determination skills. Although these practices and resources are readily available, teacher

education programs must prepare teachers with (a) an understanding of the concept of

self-determination, (b) knowledge and skills to effectively teach self-determination skills and

embed real-life self-determination examples into the curriculum, (c) an understanding of the

various self-determination assessments and curricula available for teaching self-determination

skills, and (d) opportunities to use self-determination-skill EBPs during course work and field

experiences.

Family Involvement

This essential component includes involving families in the transition planning process

and empowering families to take a role in the process (Kohler, 1996). There are five essential

components in this area that should be considered while preparing teachers to work with

secondary students with disabilities: (a) facilitating parental involvement, engagement, and

support for postschool outcomes; (b) encouraging parent involvement in transition planning;

(c) understanding student perceptions of family support; (d) promoting positive parental

expectations for postschool employment and education; and (e) implementing parental training

in transition.

Parental involvement is one predictor of postschool success to consider while preparing

teachers to involve and empower families in transition planning. Parental involvement has been

operationally defined as follows: “Parents/families/guardian are active and knowledgeable

participants in all aspects of transition planning (e.g., decision making, providing support,

attending meetings, and advocating for their child)” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 11). Teachers must

be prepared with the knowledge and skills to provide information to parents or caregivers about

all aspects of the transition process, establish a school-wide system to facilitate ongoing

of 58

communication with families, and ensure school staff members’ knowledge related to providing

culturally competent transition planning.

Further, parental expectations have been identified as predictors of postschool success for

students with disabilities. It is important that teachers understand effective transition

components that should be included in a transition program that may affect parents’ expectations

for their students in the transition planning process (Doren, Gau, & Lindstrom, 2012).

Additionally, encouraging parent involvement can promote active student involvement in the

transition planning process (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Javitz, & Valdes, 2012). This includes

preparing teachers to (a) understand families, including families from culturally diverse

backgrounds; (b) identify methods for involving families in the transition process; (c) work with

families and students to promote understanding of the importance of preparing students for

postschool life; and (d) promote positive parental expectations for culturally relevant postschool

employment and education.

Teachers must also understand the EBPs that can be used to promote family involvement

during transition planning. Offering training has been empirically validated as a strategy to

promote family involvement. For example, in one study, training was used to teach parents about

transition planning and how to be an integral part of the process (Boone, 1992). Furthermore, in

other fields of study, parent training interventions have been established as EBPs (cf. Kaminsky,

Valle, Filene, & Boyle, 2008).

It is important that teachers are prepared not only to implement effective parent training,

but also to understand the importance of the parental-involvement predictors of postschool

success. Teacher education programs must provide teachers with (a) an understanding of the

importance of family involvement, (b) opportunities to develop training they can use to facilitate

of 58

family involvement, (c) knowledge and skills to work with families from diverse backgrounds,

and (d) opportunities to work with families during course work and field experiences.

Program Structure

This component involves evaluating and improving transition programs to support the

needs of students with disabilities (Kohler, 1996). As previously mentioned, program structure

requires not only teacher facilitation of effective transition programs and practices, but also an

understanding of and the ability to elicit systems-level support. Therefore, teacher education

programs should include information related to the infrastructures and systems related to

stakeholder involvement and participation in stakeholder groups while providing in-school and

postschool transition services for students with disabilities.

To ensure the needs of all students with disabilities are met, teachers, along with other

school staff members and administrators, must understand how to evaluate and improve

secondary transition programs to ensure continual program improvements. The essential

program structure components are (a) promoting opportunities for extended transition services

(18-21 programs), (b) promoting inclusion in general education, (c) ensuring that effective

transition programs and services are in place, (d) promoting student supports, (e) ensuring

students meet exit exam requirements and achieve high school diploma status, and

(f) implementing drop-out prevention interventions for at-risk youth. Teachers must also have

the knowledge and skills to effectively implement predictors of postschool success related to

these program structure components.

Specifically, there are four predictors related to these essential components (i.e., student

support, inclusion in general education, transition program, and exit exam/high school diploma

status) that should be considered while preparing teachers to ensure that students receive

effective evidence-based transition planning and services. See Appendix B: Table B2 for the

of 58

operational definition of each of the predictors of postschool success related to program

structure. Teachers must be prepared with the knowledge and skills to improve transition

programs; they must (a) understand the characteristics of each of the predictors of postschool

success as it relates to transition program components; (b) identify opportunities that students

with mild, moderate, and severe disabilities have for extended transition services beyond high

school; (c) have knowledge and skills to facilitate access to the general curriculum for all

students with disabilities; (d) identify models of transition programs (e.g., employment

programs, career technical education, college training) that can be implemented in high school;

and (e) develop and implement both informal and formal student support networks to ensure that

students are supported as they move through high school into postschool life.

Teachers must also understand EBPs related to program structures that can be used to

support students with disabilities. NSTTAC has identified three EBPs that can be used by

teachers and schools to support students (i.e., Check and Connect, community-based instruction,

and extension of career planning services after graduation; see Appendix B: Table B2; refer to


to Practice Lesson Plan Starters). There are a number of empirically validated practices related

to these EBPs. For example, Check and Connect has been used to promote student involvement

in IEP meetings with students who have participated in systematic monitoring, mentoring, and

problem-solving and goal-setting training; there is also a variety of methods used to facilitate

participation in IEP meetings (Sinclair, Christensen, & Thurlow, 2005). In addition, extension of

career planning services after graduation has been used to promote increased financial skills for

students with disabilities by providing varied services (e.g., job training, identifying employers,


of 58

linking with adult service providers, on-the-job training, vocational assessment; Izzo, Cartledge,

Miller, Growick, & Rutkowski, 2000).

Teacher education programs must prepare teachers with (a) an understanding of the need

for effective methods to ensure that transition programs include all of the components to promote

student success, (b) knowledge and skills to effectively evaluate and improve transition programs

and practices, (c) knowledge and understanding of methods to facilitate both informal and formal

support systems for students with disabilities, and (d) opportunities to design and implement

EBPs related to program structure during course work and field experiences.

Interagency Collaboration

Interagency collaboration involves methods for developing relationships and agreements

with agency partners required to facilitate successful transitions into postschool life for students

with disabilities (Kohler, 1996). There are three essential components in this area that should be

considered while preparing teachers to work with secondary students with disabilities:

(a) connecting students and families to outside agencies, (b) understanding critical elements of

interagency collaboration, and (c) cross-disciplinary training.

EBPs have not yet been identified for interagency collaboration; however, interagency

collaboration is a predictor of postschool education and employment success (Test, Mazzotti, et

al., 2009). Furthermore, interagency collaboration has been continually identified in the

literature as a best practice in the transition planning process (Kohler, 1996; Morgan et al., 2013;

Morningstar & Clark, 2003). Therefore, it is imperative that teachers are effectively prepared

with the knowledge and skills to facilitate both intra-agency and interagency collaboration.

Similar to program structure, interagency collaboration requires not only teacher effort,

but also systems-level supports that include making connections with intra-agency and

interagency personnel to ensure that students with disabilities are linked to services and supports

of 58

to ensure both in-school and postschool success. Therefore, teacher preparation programs should

include information related to systems-level supports that enhance teachers’ knowledge and

skills related to intra-agency and interagency collaboration. While considering intra-agency and

interagency collaboration, it is imperative that teachers, along with other stakeholders,

understand how the needs of students with disabilities from culturally diverse backgrounds are

being met.

There is one predictor of postschool success related to these essential components that

should be considered while preparing teachers to effectively facilitate intra-agency and

interagency collaboration (i.e., interagency collaboration). Interagency collaboration has been

operationally defined as “a clear, purposeful, and carefully designed process that promotes

cross-agency, cross-program, and cross-disciplinary collaborative efforts leading to tangible

transition outcomes for youth” (Rowe et al., 2013b, p. 10). Teachers must be prepared with the

knowledge and skills to facilitate intra-agency collaboration (i.e., collaboration within school

[e.g., general education teachers, career technical educators, related service providers]) and

interagency collaboration (i.e., collaboration with adult service providers and community

partners). This includes preparing teachers to (a) participate in interagency councils; (b) develop

and/or understand district/state interagency agreements; (c) identify methods for developing

community partnerships (i.e., local businesses, recreational programs, and parent networks);

(d) conduct community mapping to identify resources and adult services providers within the

community; (e) understand interagency collaboration models; and (f) effectively collaborate with

school personnel to ensure that students with disabilities are supported throughout the school

environment; this includes collaborating to ensure that students receive appropriate

accommodations and AT as needed in course work.

of 58

This section has described the required knowledge and skills that teachers must have to

provide evidence-based secondary transition programs and practices. It is imperative that

teacher education programs include these components to ensure that pre- and in-service teachers

are prepared to support secondary students with disabilities. The predictors of postschool

success should guide transition program development and instruction, and the transition EBPs

should be used to promote student skill development. This helps ensure that pre- and in-service

teachers are prepared to successfully work with secondary students with disabilities.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Although general consensus has been reached regarding the essential components for

teaching transition content, research related to EBPs for teaching transition skills offers

continued enhancements to what should be taught. The steady increase in the volume of

research targeting evidenced-based interventions for teaching students transition-related skills

should guide content enhancement efforts for IHEs and SEAs. A large research base related to

secondary transition EBPs has been identified for teachers to use to promote student skill

development; this research base includes content such as (a) teaching academic and functional

skills, employment skills, and self-determination skills; (b) providing community-based

instruction; and (c) facilitating family involvement (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Additionally,

there are 17 operationally defined predictors of postschool success (see Appendix B: Table B3)

that support essential program components that should be considered for inclusion in teacher

preparation programs to ensure that teachers are prepared to work with stakeholders to evaluate,

develop, and enhance secondary transition programs at the school, district, and systems levels

(Mazzotti et al., 2012; Rowe et al., 2013; Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). Taken together, these

research syntheses provide direction for preparing secondary special educators and transition

of 58

specialists in EBPs exhibiting at least moderate effects on student skill development; they also

point to important areas that predict future in-school and postschool success.

Furthermore, it is important to note that although two of the taxonomy areas

(i.e., student-focused planning and student development) have a number of EBPs to support the

research base, there are three areas (i.e., family involvement, program structure, and interagency

collaboration) that have a limited number of EBPs or no EBPs. This has implications for IHEs

and researchers because consideration must be given to future research related to these areas to

enhance the research base. On the other hand, while including the areas of family involvement,

program structure, and interagency collaboration in personnel preparation programs, IHE and

SEA professionals should discuss these areas in terms of the identified predictors of postschool

success to ensure that teachers understand the essential program characteristics that have been

linked to positive postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities.

While preparing secondary transition teachers, the challenge is to not only support

teachers in gaining the knowledge and skills to implement secondary transition EBPs and

predictors of postschool success, but to also change current practice. The results from

meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews identifying transition interventions showing

evidence of effectiveness should be carefully considered while developing transition course

work (Haber et al., 2013; Test, Fowler, et al., 2009; Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). It is clear that

research should continue to address the impact of transition teacher education to ensure that

secondary teachers are implementing EBPs. The next generation of research must directly

examine student postschool outcomes in relationship to teacher training. In addition, teacher

preparation programs must carefully examine what are believed to be essential components of

transition but for which there is limited research (e.g., family involvement, interagency

of 58

collaboration). Finally, future researchers should consider examining the degree to which

current transition programs include EBPs in course work. To date, this important area of

research has yet to be undertaken.

Teacher education programs must continue to identify and embed instruction related to

secondary transition throughout course work. Because many teacher preparation programs may

have only a single course (or no courses) introducing transition practices, it is imperative that

teacher education programs use this IC to evaluate their content and methods of instruction.

This will offer guidance to program professionals to consider addressing essential transition

components throughout course work to ensure that teachers are prepared with the knowledge

and skills to provide evidence-based transition programming to students with disabilities.

Ultimately, this should lead to improved teacher preparation at the secondary level and

improved in-school and postschool outcomes for students with disabilities.

of 58

References

Alberto, P. A., Cihak, D. F., & Gama, R. I. (2005). Use of static picture prompts versus video

modeling during simulation instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26,

327-339. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.11.002

Allen, S., Smith, A., Test, D. W., Flowers, C., & Wood, W. M. (2001). The effects of

Self-Directed IEP on student participation in IEP meetings. Career Development for

Exceptional Individuals, 24, 107-120. doi:10.1177/088572880102400202

Anderson, D., Kleinhammer-Tramill, J. P., Morningstar, M. E., Lehman, J., Kohler, P., Blalock,

G., & Wehmeyer, M. (2003). What’s happening in personnel preparation in transition? A

national survey. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 145-160.

doi:10.1177/088572880302600204

Ayres, K., & Cihak, D. (2010). Computer- and video-based instruction of food-preparation skills:

Acquisition, generalization, and maintenance. Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities, 48, 195-208. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-48.3.195

Baer, R. M., Flexer, R. W., Beck, S., Amstutz, N., Hoffman, L., Brothers, J., . . . Zechman, C.

(2003). A collaborative followup study on transition service utilization and post-school

outcomes. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 7-25.

doi:10.1177/088572880302600102

Bahr, C. M., & Rieth, H. J. (1991). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goals

on student achievement using computer-based drill-and-practice. Journal of Special

Education Technology, 11(1), 33-48.

of 58

Bates, P. E., Cuvo, T., Miner, C. A., & Korabek, C. A. (1999). Simulated and community-based

instruction involving persons with mild and moderate mental retardation. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 22, 95-115. doi:10.1016/S0891-4222(01)00060-9

Benitez, D., Morningstar, M. E., & Frey, B. (2009). A multistate survey of special education

teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development for

Exceptional Individuals, 32, 6-16. doi:10.1177/0885728808323945

Benz, M., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment

outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives.

Exceptional Children, 66(4), 509-529.

Blalock, G., Kocchar-Bryant, C. A., Test, D. W., Kohler, P., White, W., Lehman, J., . . . Patton,

J. (2003). The need for comprehensive personnel preparation in transition and career

development: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and

Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 207-226.

doi:10.1177/088572880302600207

Boone, R. (1992). Involving culturally diverse parents in transition planning. Career

Development for Exceptional Individuals, 15, 205-221.

doi:10.1177/088572889201500205

Branham, R. S., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Kleinert, H. (1999). Teaching community

skills to students with moderate disabilities: Comparing combined techniques of

classroom simulation, videotape modeling, and community-based instruction. Education

and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 170-181.

of 58

Cannella-Malone, H. I., Wheaton, J. E., Wu, P., Tullis, C. A., & Park, J. H. (2012). Comparing

the effects of video prompting with and without error correction on skill acquisition for

students with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and

Developmental Disabilities, 47, 332-344.

Collins, B. C., Stinson, D. M., & Land, L. (1993). A comparison of in vivo and simulation prior

to in vivo instruction in teaching generalized safety skills. Education and Training in

Mental Retardation, 28, 128-142.

Cook, B. G., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2013). Moving research into practice: Can we make

dissemination stick? Exceptional Children, 79, 163-180.

Doren, B., Gau, J. M., & Lindstrom, L. E. (2012). The relationship between parent expectations

and postschool outcomes of adolescents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 79, 7-23.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Haber, M. G., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Rowe, D. A., Bartholomew, A. L., Test, D. W., &

Fowler, C. H. (2013). A meta-analysis of predictors of postsecondary success for students

with disabilities. Manuscript in revision.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and

potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newton, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the

innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher

Education, 26, 52-56.

of 58

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L. & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of

change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Izzo, M. V., Cartledge, G., Miller, L., Growick, B., & Rutkowski, S. (2000). Increasing

employment earnings: Extended transition services that make a difference. Career


doi:10.1177/088572880002300203

Kaminsky, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A meta-analytic review of

components associated with parent training program effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal

Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 567-589. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9

Knott, L., & Asselin, S. B. (1999). Transition competencies: Perception of secondary education

teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 55-65.

doi:10.1177/088840649902200106

Kohler, P. D. (1996). Taxonomy for transition programming. Champaign: University of Illinois.

Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. (2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future.

Journal of Special Education, 37, 174-183. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030701

Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The development and validation of

an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with

disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 27-302. doi:10.2307/1511358

Landmark, L. J., Ju, S., & Zhang, D. (2010). Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen

plus years later. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 165-176.

doi:10.1177/0885728810376410

Lasater, M. W., & Brady, M. P. (1995). Effects of video self-modeling and feedback on task

fluency: A home-based intervention. Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 389-407.

of 58

Lee, S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., & Little, T. D. (2008).

Self-determination and access to the general education curriculum. The Journal of

Special Education, 42, 97-107. doi:10.1177/0022466907312354

Lee, Y., Wehmeyer, M., Palmer, S., Williams-Diehm, K., Davies, D. K., & Stock, S. E. (2011).

Effect of student-directed transition planning with a computer-based reading support

program on the self-determination of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special

Education, 45, 104-117. doi:10.1177/0022466909358916

Li, J., Bassett, S. D., & Hutchinson, S. R. (2009). Secondary special educators’ transition

involvement. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34, 163-172.

doi:10.1080/13668250902849113

Martin, J. E., Huber-Marshall, L., Maxson, L., & Jerman, P. (1996). Choicemaker: Self-Directed

IEP. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lovett,

D. L. (2006). Increasing student participation in their transition IEP meetings:

Establishing the Self-Directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children,

72, 299-316.

Mazzotti, V. L., & Plotner, A. J. (2013). Implementing secondary transition evidence-based

practices: Professional training, access, knowledge, and utility. Manuscript in

preparation.

Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. R., & Test, D. W. (2013). Navigating the evidence-based practice

maze: Resources for teachers of secondary students with disabilities. Intervention in

School and Clinic, 48, 159-166. doi:10.1177/1053451212454004

of 58

Mazzotti, V. L., Test, D. W., & Mustian, A. L. (2012). Evidence-based practices and predictors:

Implications for policy makers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. Advance online

publication. doi:10.1177/1044207312460888

Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Fields, E. A. (2008). Evaluation of a portable DVD player and

system of least prompts to self-prompt cooking task completion by young adults with

moderate intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 42, 179-190.

doi:10.1177/0022466907313348

Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Gustafson, M. R. (2009). Use of video modeling to teach

extinguishing of cooking related fires to individuals with moderate intellectual

disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 67-79.

Mechling, L. C., & Ortega-Hurndon, F. (2007). Computer-based video instruction to teach young

adults with moderate intellectual disabilities to perform multiple step, job tasks in a

generalized setting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 24-37.

Mechling, L. C., & Stephens, E. (2009). Comparison of self-prompting of cooking skills via

picture-based cookbooks and video recipes. Education and Training in Developmental

Disabilities, 44, 218-236.

Morgan, R. L., Callow-Heuser, C. A., Horrocks, L. L., Hoffman, A. N., & Kupferman, S. (2013).

Identifying transition teacher competencies through literature review and surveys of

experts and practitioners. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional

Individuals. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2165143413481379

of 58

Morningstar, M. E., & Clark, G. M. (2003). The status of personnel preparation for transition

education and service: What is the critical content? How can it be offered? Career


doi:10.1177/088572880302600208

Morningstar, M. E., & Clavenna-Deane, E. (in press). Preparing secondary special educators and

transition specialists. In P. T. Sindelar, E. D. McCray, M. T. Brownell, & B. Lignugaris

Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation. Florence,

KY: Routledge.

Morningstar, M. E., Frey, B. B., Noonan, P. M., Ng, J., Clavenna-Deane, B., Graves, P., . . .

Williams-Diehm, K. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the relationship of transition

preparation and self-determination for students with disabilities in postsecondary

educational settings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(2), 80-94.

doi:10.1177/0885728809356568

Morningstar, M. E., & Roberts, S. (in preparation). Evaluating the implementation and impact of

transition evidence-based predictors and practices among transition specialists.

Unpublished manuscript. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center. (2013). Evidence-based practices.

Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices

Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., & Dodd, J. M. (1994). The effects of learning strategy instruction on

the completion of job applications by students with learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 27, 104-110. doi:10.1177/002221949402700205


of 58

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. (2009). The post-high school outcomes of

youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report from the National

Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Riffel, L. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Turnbull, A. P., Lattimore, J., Davies, D., Stock, S., & Fisher, S.

(2005). Promoting independent performance of transition-related tasks using a palmtop

PC-based self-directed visual and auditory prompting system. Journal of Special

Education Technology, 20, 5-14.

Rowe, D. A., Alverson, C. Y., Unruh, D., Fowler, C. H., Kellems, R., & Test, D. W. (2013a).

Operationalizing evidence-based predictors in secondary transition: A Delphi study.

Manuscript in preparation.

Rowe, D. A., Alverson, C. Y., Unruh, D., Fowler, C. H., Kellems, R., & Test, D. W. (2013b).

Predictor implementation school/district self-assessment. Retrieved from National

Post-School Outcomes Center website:

http://psocenter.org/content_page_assets/content_page_3/Predictor_Self-

Assessment.final_06_24_13.pdf

Roy, P., & Hord, S. M. (2004). Innovation configurations chart a measured course toward

change. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 54-58.

Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Williams-Diehm, K., & Little, T. D. (2012).

Effect of intervention with the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction on access

and goal attainment. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 320-330.

doi:10.1177/0741932511410072

http://psocenter.org/content_page_assets/content_page_3/Predictor_Self-Assessment.final_06_24_13.pdf


of 58

Sinclair, M. F., Christensen, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of

urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children,

71, 465-482.

Solberg, V. S., Wills, J., & Osman, D. S. (2013). Promoting quality individualized learning

plans: A “how to guide” focused on the high school years. Washington, DC: National

Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational

Leadership.

Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S., White, J. A., Mazzotti, V. L., Walker, A. R., . . .

Kortering, L. (2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career

Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115-128. doi:10.1177/0885728809336859

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L. J., & Kohler, P. H.

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post-school

outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,

32, 160-181. doi:10.1177/0885728809346960

Test, D. W., & Neale, M. (2004). Using the Self-Advocacy Strategy to increase middle graders’

IEP participation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 135-145.

doi:10.1023/B:JOBE.0000023660.21195.c2

Trainor, A. A. (2005). Self-determination perceptions and behaviors of diverse students with LD

during the transition planning process. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(3), 233-249.

doi:10.1177/00222194050380030501

U.S. Department of Education. (2011, May). Application for new grants under the Individuals

with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Personnel development to improve services and results for

children with disabilities (CFDA 84.325). Washington, DC: Author.

of 58

VanReusen, A. K., Bos, C., & Schumaker, J. B. (1994). Self-Advocacy Strategy for education

and transition planning. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Javitz, H., & Valdes, K. (2012). A national picture of

parent and youth participation in the IEP and transition planning meetings. Journal of

Disability Policy Studies, 23, 140-155. doi:10.1177/1044207311425384

Wehmeyer, M., Lawrence, M., Garner, N., Soukup, N., & Palmer, S. (2004). Whose Future Is It

Anyway? A student-directed transition planning process. Retrieved from University of

Oklahoma website: http://www.ou.edu/content/education/centers-and-

partnerships/zarrow/self-determination-education-materials/whos-future-is-it-

anyway.html

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life: Implications

for special education services and supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33, 1-16.

Wiodowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching.

Strengthening Student Engagement, 53(1), 17-21.

Wolfe, P. S., Boone, R. S., & Blanchett, W. J. (1998). Regular and special educators’ perceptions

of transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 87-106.

doi:10.1177/088572889802100108

Wolgemuth, J. R., Cobb, R. B., & Alwell, M. (2008). The effects of mnemonic interventions on

academic outcomes for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Learning

Disabilities Research, 23, 1-10. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00258.x

Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with

learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compare-and-contrast

essays. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 2-15

http://www.ou.edu/content/education/centers-and-partnerships/zarrow/self-determination-education-materials/whos-future-is-it-anyway.html



of 58

Appendix A

Innovation Configuration for Transition Planning and Services

Essential Components Implementation Levels

Instructions: Place an X under the

appropriate variation implementation score

for each course syllabus that meets the

criteria level from 0 to 3. Score and rate

each item separately.

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Rating

There is no evidence

that the component is

included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.

Must contain at least

one of the following:

reading, test,

lecture/presentation,

discussion, modeling/

demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level

1, plus at least one of

the following:

observation,

project/activity, case

study, or lesson plan

study.


one item from Level

1 as well as at least

one item from Level


the following:

tutoring, small group

student teaching, or

whole group

internship.

Rate each item as the

number of the highest

variation receiving an

X under it.

1. Student-Focused Planning

1.1 - Involving students in transition IEP.

Using curricula and EBPs to

promote student involvement in

transition IEP

Self-Advocacy Strategy

Self-Directed IEP

1.2 - Teaching transition planning skills

(practice and predictors).

Knowledge of transition planning

Skills to set and attain goals

1.3 - Including a comprehensive and

relevant program of study in IEP (predictor).

of 58










included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test,



demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level


one item from Level


the following:



whole group

internship.




X under it.

1. Student-Focused Planning

1.4 - Including appropriate and measurable

transition goals in IEP (predictor).

1.5 - Including systematic age-appropriate

transition assessment (predictor).

2. Student Development

2.1 - Teaching independent living skills (all

practices).

Home maintenance skills (e.g.,

cleaning)

Leisure skills

Food preparation and cooking

skills

Laundry skills

Self-management skills

Safety skills

Communication skills

of 58










included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test,



demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level


one item from Level


the following:



whole group

internship.




X under it.


Self-care skills (practice and

predictor)

Social skills (practice and

predictor)

2.2 - Teaching community participation

skills (all practices).

Restaurant purchasing skills

Grocery shopping skills

Community experience and

instruction skills (practice and

predictor)

Life skills (practice)

o Finance skills (practice)

o Community integration across

multiple skills (e.g., social,

domestic, public

transportation, on-the-job)

(practice)

of 58










included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test,



demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level


one item from Level


the following:



whole group

internship.




X under it.


o Banking skills

2.3 - Employment skills and experiences.

Providing school-based work

experiences

o Teaching how to complete job

applications (practice)

o Offering career awareness

experiences (predictor)

o Encouraging enrollment in

occupational courses

(predictor)

o Encouraging enrollment in

vocational education

(predictor)

Providing work-based experiences

of 58










included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test,



demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level


one item from Level


the following:



whole group

internship.




X under it.


o Teaching job-specific

employment skills in the

community (practice)

o Teaching job-related social

skills in the community

(practice)

o Teaching on-the-job

self-management skills

(practice)

o Encouraging participation in

paid and unpaid work

experiences

(e.g., work study, internships)

2.4 - Teaching academic skills (all

practices).

Teaching academic skills using

specific instructional strategies

o Mnemonics

of 58










included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test,



demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level


one item from Level


the following:



whole group

internship.




X under it.


o Peer-assisted instruction

o Self-management

o Technology

o Visual displays

Teaching functional academics for

students for whom it is appropriate

o Teaching functional math

(e.g., purchasing skills,

budgeting skills, money skills)

o Teaching functional reading

o Teaching self-determination

skills (e.g., choice-making

skills,

goal-setting skills, decision-

making skills, problem-solving

skills)

of 58


Instructions: Place an X under the appropriate

variation implementation score for each

course syllabus that meets the criteria level

from 0 to 3. Score and rate each item

separately.




included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test,



demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level


one item from Level


the following:



whole group

internship.




X under it.

3. Family Involvement

3.1 - Facilitating parental

involvement/engagement/support for

postschool outcomes (predictor).

3.2 - Encouraging parent involvement in

transition planning (predictor).

3.3 - Understanding student perceptions of

positive family support (predictor).

3.4 - Promoting positive parental

expectations for postschool employment and

education (predictor).

3.5 - Implementing parental training in

transition (practice).

of 58










included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test,



demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level 1

as well as at least one

item from Level 2,

plus at least one of the

following: tutoring,

small group student

teaching, or whole

group internship.




X under it.

4. Program Structure

4.1 - Promoting opportunities for extended

transition services (18-21 programs).

4.2 - Promoting inclusion in general

education.

4.3 - Ensuring effective transition

programs/services are in place.

Transition planning methods

Transition services

Models of transition programs

(e.g., Youth Transition Program

[YTP], employment programs,

career education, college training)

4.4 - Promoting student supports

(predictors).

Understanding and encouraging

informal support networks (e.g.,

family, friends)

o Time with friends outside of

school

Ensuring positive formal supports

of 58










included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test,



demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level 1

as well as at least one

item from Level 2,

plus at least one of the

following: tutoring,

small group student

teaching, or whole

group internship.




X under it.

4. Program Structure

o Satisfaction with high school

programs

High occupational guidance and

support (formal)

4.5 - Promoting completion of exit

requirements/high school diploma status

(predictors).

High school diploma

High scores on tests (e.g.,

academic, adaptive, functional)

High GPA

4.6 - Implementing drop-out prevention

interventions for at-risk youth.

Check and Connect

of 58


Instructions: Place an X under the appropriate

variation implementation score for each

course syllabus that meets the criteria level

from 0 to 3. Score and rate each item

separately.




included in the

syllabus, or the

syllabus only

mentions the

component.



reading, test, lecture/

presentation,


demonstration, or

quiz.


one item from Level


the following:

observation,



study.


one item from Level


one item from Level


the following:



whole group

internship.




X under it.

5. Interagency Collaboration (predictors)

5.1 - Connecting students and families to

outside agencies (from this predictor:

assistance from multiple agencies).

5.2 - Understanding critical elements of

interagency collaboration.

Transition councils

Interagency agreements

Directories of services

Local business partnerships

Parent networks

Procedures for school personnel to

implement interagency collaboration

5.3 - Implementing cross-disciplinary

planning (both intra-agency and interagency

collaboration).

of 58

Appendix B

Table B1: Secondary Transition Evidence-Based Practices Organized by the Taxonomy

Table B2: Operational Definitions for Evidence-Based Predictors for Postschool Success

Table B3: Evidence-Based Predictors by Postschool Outcome Area

of 58

Table B1

Secondary Transition Evidence-Based Practices Organized by the Taxonomy

Taxonomy Category Instructional Strategy Skill Taught

Student-Focused Planning Using Whose Future Is It

Anyway?

Student Knowledge of

Transition Planning

Using Check and Connect

Using Computer-Assisted

Instruction

Using Self-Advocacy

Strategy

Using Self-Directed IEP

Using Published

Curricula

Student Participation in IEP

Meeting

Student Development Using Mnemonics

Using Peer-Assisted

Instruction

Using Self-Management

Instruction

Using Technology

Using Visual Displays

Academic Skills

Using Backward

Chaining

Using Constant Time

Delay

Using Forward Chaining

Using Progressive Time

Delay

Using Self-Monitoring

Instruction

Using System of

Least-to-Most Prompts

Using System of

Most-to-Least Prompts

Using Total Task

Chaining

Functional Life Skills

Using Community-Based

Instruction

Using Constant Time

Delay

Using Simulations

Banking Skills


Instruction

Community Integration

Skills

of 58



Instruction

Using Constant Time

Delay

Using Response

Prompting

Using Video Modeling

Using System of


Food Preparation and

Cooking Skills


Instruction


Instruction

Using Response

Prompting

Using System of


Grocery Shopping Skills

Using Response

Prompting

Using Video Modeling

Home Maintenance Skills

Using Response

Prompting

Laundry Skills

Using Response

Prompting

Using Constant Time

Delay

Leisure Skills


Instruction


Delay

Using System of


Safety Skills

Using One-More-Than

Strategy

Counting Money

Using Extension of

Career Planning Services

After Graduation

Increased Finance Skills


Instruction

Using One-More-Than

Strategy


Delay

Purchasing Skills

of 58


Using Response

Prompting

Using Simulations

Using System of


Using Whose Future Is It

Anyway?

Self-Determination Skills

Using Self-Determined

Learning Model of

Instruction

Goal Attainment Skills

Using Response

Prompting


Instruction

Using Simulations


Instruction

Social Skills


Instruction

Using System of


Communication Skills


Instruction

Using Response

Prompting

Employment Skills


Instruction

Using Constant Time

Delay


Instruction

Using System of


Job-Specific Skills

Using Mnemonics Completing a Job

Application

Family Involvement Using Training Modules Parent Involvement in the

Transition Process

Program Structure Using Check and Connect Student Participation in the

IEP Meeting


Instruction

Banking Skills

of 58



Instruction

Grocery Shopping Skills


Instruction

Community Integration

Skills


Instruction

Purchasing Skills


Instruction

Safety Skills


Instruction

Communication Skills


Instruction

Employment Skills

Using an Extension of

Career Planning Services

After Graduation

Increased Finance Skills

Interagency Collaboration None None

Note. Secondary transition EBPs were identified by NSTTAC (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009).

Descriptions of each EBP can be found at http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-

practices-organized-skill-being-taught.

http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices-organized-skill-being-taught

http://www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices-organized-skill-being-taught

of 58

Table B2

Operational Definitions for Evidence-Based Predictors of Postschool Success

Evidence-Based Predictor Operational Definition

Career Awareness

(Taxonomy Area: Student Development)

Learning about opportunities, education, and

skills needed in various occupational pathways

to choose a career that matches one’s strengths

and interests.

Community Experiences


Activities occurring outside of the school

setting, supported with in-class instruction,

where students apply academic, social, and/or

general work behaviors and skills.

Exit Exam Requirements/High School

Diploma Status

(Taxonomy Areas: Student Development,

Program Structure)

Exit exams are standardized state tests,

assessing single content area (e.g., Algebra,

English) or multiple skill areas, with specified

levels of proficiency that students must pass in

order to obtain a high school diploma.

Diploma status is achieved by completing the

requirements of the state awarding the

diploma, including the completion of

necessary core curriculum credits.

Inclusion in General Education

(Taxonomy Areas: Student Development,

Program Structure)

Requires students with disabilities to have

access to general education curriculum and be

engaged in regular education classes with

peers without disabilities.

Interagency Collaboration

(Taxonomy Area: Interagency Collaboration)

A clear, purposeful, and carefully designed

process that promotes cross-agency,

cross-program, and cross-disciplinary

collaborative efforts leading to tangible

transition outcomes for youth.

Occupational Courses


Individual courses that support career

awareness, allow or enable students to explore

various career pathways, develop occupational

specific skills through instruction, and

experiences focused on their desired

employment goals.

of 58


Paid Employment/Work Experience


Work experience is any activity that places the

student in an authentic workplace and could

include work sampling, job shadowing,

internships, apprenticeships, and paid

employment.

Paid employment can include existing

standard jobs in a company or organization or

customized work assignments negotiated with

the employer, but these activities always

feature competitive pay (e.g., minimum wage)

paid directly to the student by the employer.

Parental Involvement

(Taxonomy Area: Family Involvement)

Parents/families/guardian are active and

knowledgeable participants in all aspects of

transition planning (e.g., decision making,

providing support, attending meetings,

advocating for their child).

Program of Study

(Taxonomy Area: Student-Focused Planning)

An individualized set of courses, experiences,

and curriculum designed to develop students’

academic and functional achievement to

support the attainment of students’ desired

postschool goals.

Self-Care/Independent Living Skills


Skills necessary for management of one’s

personal self-care and daily independent

living, including the personal management

skills needed to interact with others, daily

living skills, financial management skills, and

the self-management of healthcare/wellness

needs.

Self-Determination/Self-Advocacy

(Taxonomy Areas: Student-Focused Planning,

Student Development)

The ability to make choices, solve problems,

set goals, evaluate options, take initiative to

reach one’s goals, and accept consequences of

one's actions.

of 58


Social Skills


Behaviors and attitudes that facilitate

communication and cooperation (e.g., social

conventions, social problem-solving while

engaged in a social interaction, body language,

speaking, listening, responding, verbal and

written communication).

Student Support

(Taxonomy Area: Program Structure)

A network of people (e.g., family, friends,

educators, adult service providers) who

provide services and resources in multiple

environments to prepare students to obtain

their annual transition and postsecondary goals

aligned with their preferences, interests, and

needs.

Transition Program

(Taxonomy Area: Program Structure)

A program that prepares students to move

from secondary settings (e.g., middle school,

high school) to adult-life, utilizing

comprehensive transition planning and

education that creates individualized

opportunities, services, and supports to help

students achieve their postschool goals in

education/training, employment, and

independent living.

Vocational Education


Vocational education is a sequence of courses

that prepares students for a specific job or

career at various levels from trade or craft

positions to technical, business, or

professional careers.

Work Study


A specified sequence of work skills instruction

and experiences designed to develop students’

work attitudes and general work behaviors by

providing students with mutually supportive

and integrated academic and vocational

instruction.

Note. Evidence-based predictor operational definitions from Rowe et al., 2013b. The Predictor

Implementation School/District Self-Assessment, which includes operational definitions and

characteristics of each evidence-based predictor, can be found at

http://psocenter.org/content_page_assets/content_page_3/Predictor_Self-

Assessment.final_06_24_13.pdf.



of 58

Table B3

Evidence-Based Predictors by Postschool Outcome Area

Predictor/Outcome Education Employment Independent Living

Career Awareness X X

Community Experiences X

Exit Exam Requirements/High School

Diploma Status X

Inclusion in General Education X X X

Interagency Collaboration X X

Occupational Courses X X

Paid Employment/Work Experience X X

Parental Involvement X

Parental Expectations X X

Program of Study X

Self-Advocacy/Self-Determination X X

Self-Care/Independent Living X X X

Social Skills X X

Student Support X X X

Transition Program X X

Vocational Education X X

Work Study X

Note. Evidence-based predictors of postschool success were identified by NSTTAC (Test,

Mazzotti, et al., 2009). Predictor resources related to literature review procedures, research base,

and operational definitions can be found at http://www.nsttac.org/content/predictor-resources.

http://www.nsttac.org/content/predictor-resources

Teacher Preparation to Deliver Evidence-Based...

Documents

Transcript of Teacher Preparation to Deliver Evidence-Based...